Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2012, 04:44 PM
Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
If you're an atheist, you'll get a major endorphine rush from watching this video. You're welcome.

It should be noted that when he says "and this person didn't even bother writing a single thing about Jesus", it should be said "and we haven't yet found a single writing about Jesus from this person", but in many cases that's pedantic... it's a very well-made case against the existence of Jesus.




My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 04:50 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
Already posted that vid. Already have a non-Jesus thread currently going. But nobody listens to me. And nobody likes me. And I think I'll eat some worms. Big Grin

That fucker didn't show up on Skepticon 4 like they said. I wuz not happy. Angry

Of course, telling believers that Jesus never existed is like telling me there ain't no Gwynnies. Big difference being, I know I'm absurd. But so many cannot credit the simple truth that we, in general, assume truth. The skeptical tools and methodologies have seriously only come into play recently.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
14-07-2012, 05:09 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(14-07-2012 04:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Already posted that vid. Already have a non-Jesus thread currently going. But nobody listens to me. And nobody likes me. And I think I'll eat some worms. Big Grin
Sorry I missed it. People post a lot of videos, and a guy like me who is both in school and a full-time job only has so much time to dedicate to watching YouTube. Plus some of my viewing time gets stolen by things like the season premier of Breaking Bad (can you believe there's another season???)

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
I have no idea what Breaking Bad is. Tongue

The other shit don't matter, I was in whiny little bitch mode - that's my entertainment. Thing I like about this forum, mods don't get uptight about multiples and necroposting. Figure if I whine about it, they won't have to, and we can still do it. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
14-07-2012, 05:49 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(14-07-2012 04:50 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And I think I'll eat some worms. Big Grin
Ya pouter, ya left off the best parts.

Big fat juicy ones, little slim slimy ones.
See how they wiggle and squirm.
Chomp off their heads, and squeeze out the juice
And throw their tails away.
Nobody knows how I survive,
On worms, three times a day. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-07-2012, 07:05 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
I personally think that a man named Jesus probably did exist, only he wasn't written about because he wasn't seen as important. He may have just been an apocalyptic prophet that got a small following, like some people get today for saying crazy things. Followers later exaggerated his story in order to convince others to follow him as well (and join their church).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2012 07:13 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
I'll bring this up next time I have to attend in religious classes. My teacher told us that there is "plenty of evidence" proving that Jesus existed at the time. Rolleyes

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
14-07-2012, 07:13 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(14-07-2012 07:05 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  I personally think that a man named Jesus probably did exist, only he wasn't written about because he wasn't seen as important. He may have just been an apocalyptic prophet that got a small following, like some people get today for saying crazy things. Followers later exaggerated his story in order to convince others to follow him as well (and join their church).
I lean toward that kind of explanation as the most consistent with the evidence.

There may have existed a local charismatic preacher who won over a few literate converts who went on to spread the word for personal and/or political reasons.

But we may never know.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2012 07:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(14-07-2012 07:05 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  I personally think that a man named Jesus probably did exist, only he wasn't written about because he wasn't seen as important. He may have just been an apocalyptic prophet that got a small following, like some people get today for saying crazy things. Followers later exaggerated his story in order to convince others to follow him as well (and join their church).
This is where I am. There are some problems with this vid. First we know the common source was the Q document, and not Mark, which explains the common stuff, and the never found "Book of Sayings" apparently was used by Luke and Matthew. So they didn't really "plagiarize" Mark. The question about why did no one write about him, is because he was a nobody. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers. If there was a trial, it would not have even registered on the radar. There were at least 20 other known apocalyptic preachers, and this one didn't even claim, (in Mark), that he was the Messiah, much less say anything about salvation. The last few minutes are very interesting, and I hope he continues that theme about the Greek mystery cults, (as I think that's where Paul got salvation from).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-07-2012, 07:46 AM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(14-07-2012 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-07-2012 07:05 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  I personally think that a man named Jesus probably did exist, only he wasn't written about because he wasn't seen as important. He may have just been an apocalyptic prophet that got a small following, like some people get today for saying crazy things. Followers later exaggerated his story in order to convince others to follow him as well (and join their church).
This is where I am. There are some problems with this vid. First we know the common source was the Q document, and not Mark, which explains the common stuff, and the never found "Book of Sayings" apparently was used by Luke and Matthew. So they didn't really "plagiarize" Mark. The question about why did no one write about him, is because he was a nobody. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers. If there was a trial, it would not have even registered on the radar. There were at least 20 other known apocalyptic preachers, and this one didn't even claim, (in Mark), that he was the Messiah, much less say anything about salvation. The last few minutes are very interesting, and I hope he continues that theme about the Greek mystery cults, (as I think that's where Paul got salvation from).
Yeah, I totally agree. This is the main problem with arguing about the existence of someone who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago (and the paperwork involved with documenting such a person). The speaker draws some logical conclusions, but they are still assumptions and can be reasonably argued. It's extremely hard to speak with certainty about something so far removed from us.

Historians agree with the "plagiarism" of Mark... they don't see it as an either/or, but rather that they took the basic story from Mark and embellished from Q (and M and L)... but there's no reason to say with certainty that they didn't all take their stories from the same source (correlation doesn't prove causation) or that they were coincidentally agreed (as far-fetched as that may be). Like I said in the first paragraph, certainty is so difficult about something so old (even if "historians agree").

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: